I'd like to state that the existence of a god is a positive and thus the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the apologist (this does not have to be empirical, but please make your case) . Furthermore if we approach god from the Judea-Christian perspective (I expect to keep it on those terms, but you may be able to convince me otherwise if you can intrigue me enough with a novel idea) there are various traits that create contradictions; God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous, and omnibenevolent. Some of these traits are self conflicting: An omniscient god would know how to create a problem he could not solve, and an omnipotent god would be able to construct something he could not destroy. An unsolvable problem would render the god not omniscient, but the inability to render the problem would indicate a lack of omniscience from the start. The omnipotence problem follows the same. These traits also create contradictions when merged: An omnipotent god could render himself ignorant or he is not omnipotent. An omniscient god could know evil and how to exploit it, and an omnipotent god could carry through with it, but omnibenevolence would restrict this. Contradictions simply do not exist. Furthermore, a proponent of God would have to deal with the age old problem of evil. For this I'll simply quote Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" I don't think I could put it any better, except to add that the actions of God himself is demonstrably evil. Simply consider the fact that he creates people that he (being omniscient) knows will reject him, that he does nothing to change that (he's omniscient, so he certainly could), and he unjustly punishes them for the crimes he doomed them to commit in the first place.

I'd like to reiterate that the existence of any god is a positive claim and that it is up to my opponent to make the case for the existence thereof. I eagerly await a retort containing such a case.

First of all I would like to thank my opponent for presenting this debate.

I have taken this debate for my opponent's sake. From his first round argument I get the impression that he thinks belief in God is a positive notion, the existence of God would be positive, yet he has not been presented with arguments that would justify his existence. I will present those arguments to him. Though my arguments will not be from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I do believe that the God I believe in is the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jesus (Judeo-Islamo-Christian). Because my opponent has not presented a formal format to the debate, I will simply take his main concerns and address them as contentions. My arguments will point to biblical sources, but I must point out that my philosophy is based on science, and not religion, therefore my interpretation of statements will be from the context of a society void of science and the scientific method in comparison to generally accepted science. All my biblical sources will be from Young's Literal Translation.

I. Omniscience
1- There are various definitions for omniscience. None appear in the bible. I will, however, attempt to present theological perspective, and compare it to science.
a. 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight : possessed of universal or complete knowledge (http://www.merriam-webster.com......)
2- The simple theological definition for omniscient is "all knowing". This theological belief is based on several passages: 1 Sam 2:3- For a God of Knowledge is Jehova; 1 Kings 8:39- Thou hast known, Thyself alone, the heart of all the sons of man; Matthew 6:4- thy Father who is seeing in secret Himself shall reward thee manifestly; etc.
a. There is no literal statement in the bible suggesting that "God would know how to create a problem he could not solve". This notion does not conform with the literal definition of omniscience, nor does it conform with the origins of God's omniscience in the bible.
3- From a scientific perspective, I stand largely with philosophers such as Alan Watts who believe that consciousness is universal. All consciousness is an adaptation, evolution, and manifestation of the nuclear (of the nucleus) consciousness of the Universe. A quick description of this philosophy shows that the Universe must be conscious for various reasons. Science observes that atoms at one point became conscious of each other, and formed symbiotic relationships in forming the first single celled organism. Evolution led to sensitivity to light. This sensitivity evolved into eyes, while other traits also evolved, etc. etc. until we reach the current highest state of evolution of universal consciousness which is manifested in humans- we are aware of ourselves, we are aware of others, we are aware of the universe, we rationalize our existence, etc. Some theorize that the next stage of evolution of this Universal consciousness is total awareness, in which all conscious beings are tapped into the energy that sustains consciousness in the first place. Christians call this energy "the Holy Spirit". Buddhists refer to the state of "nirvana" in which Japanese Buddhism refers to the first step as "satori". In Hinduism this is referred to as "moksha".

In short, God is all knowing because his is the energy which sustains all life and consciousness. Universal energy and consciousness is of him, and it is him. The Universe is aware of every action- this is Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". There is not a pebble thrown into a pond that does not have a set of consequential reactions- however minute we might view them.

II. Omnipotence
Now that I've presented my first contention, the rest will be much simpler. I believe this issue to be trivial, and historical arguments have been convoluted by doctrine, theology, personal bias, etc. I will simply present that God, as the Universal energy, is the source of all energy in the universe. He is "all powerful" because all energy originated with him. The empirical Law of Conservation of Energy states that "energy can neither be created, or destroyed". My opponent states that an omnipotent being "would be able to construct something he could not destroy". This is not true considering a logical definition of omnipotence. I will not present theological definitions because I do not think them logical. A rational definition for omnipotence, understanding how the universe actually works, can be simply- that from which all energy originates.

III- Omnibenevolence
This is another concept I thoroughly reject. A truly "all powerful" God would not possess inherently human traits like weighing whether or not a human action is good or evil. Good and evil does not exist anywhere outside of human consciousness, and is a manifestation of a lack of adherence to societal moral laws. God does not belong to any "society", nor is he capable of human actions, thoughts, desires, etc. Because God is incapable of, say, raping a child because he is a pedophile (God has no age, no sexual organs, no sexual desire, no mind to corrupt, etc.), this action cannot be considered by God as "evil". Evil is a purely human concept. Ecclesiastes 3:19-22; Eccl 8:14; Eccl 9:11; These and Ecclesiastes as a whole, though written from a religious perspective, provide a basic philosophy that we do not and cannot know what God wants. We know the seasons, we learn weather patterns, etc., we sow, we reap, and we live life accordingly. Though the word "evil" is mentioned several times, it is in the context of what man does unto man, and what man wants for himself that he cannot take beyond his physical life. Evil is a condition of exclusive to humans, period. There is no punishment of "souls". When you die, your energy returns to the Universe... ashes to ashes, dust to dust, consciousness to consciousness.

I expect my opponent will have some questions, arguments, etc., so I will stop here, and await his response. Thank you.